Like millions of constitutional conservatives, I was an ardent Ted Cruz supporter while he was a viable candidate.

I wish he had won the Indiana primary and had overtaken Donald Trump is the race to the Cleveland national convention. But he didn’t. As the convention opens, it’s time for conservatives and patriots to unify behind the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton, and that is Donald Trump.

There are no other choices, no other options, if the goal is to stop Hillary Rodham Clinton from continuing Barack Hussein Obama’s radical transformation of the country we love.  Trump is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan, but he is the only real obstacle to the coronation of Queen Hillary. That’s why patriots must now support his candidacy.

Of course, some people have other goals besides defeating Hillary. Some want Trump to lose in order to “save the Republican Party from itself.” They remind me of the Rockefeller-Romney establishment liberals who sat out the 1964 presidential election so “Goldwater conservatism” would not take over the Republican party. We know how that worked out: with Lyndon Johnson we got the fiascos of the Great Society, the unwinnable Vietnam War — and Richard Nixon.

Many patriots can and do have serious misgivings about Donald Trump, as I do. I wish he would be more consistent in opposing Obamacare and the single-payer option, a euphemism for government takeover of medical care. I wish he had a better record on abortion. And I wish we could count on Republicans in Congress to hold fast to principles if Trump starts putting “deal-making” above fidelity to the party platform and American sovereignty.

Yes, many good people have misgivings about Donald Trump. But folks, the stakes are simply too high in 2016 to engage in self-indulgent puritanism. The undeniable reality is that constitutional liberty is already on life support, and Hillary has a plan to pull the plug. Will we stop her or will we give tacit assent to the destruction of America by wasting our energy and our votes on futile, utopian gestures?

This may come as a surprise to some ardent constitutionalists, but there is no perfect candidate. Even Ronald Reagan occasionally made mistakes, went down blind alleys and cut deals he later regretted.

My point is that constitutional conservatives have decades of experience with flawed politicians. There is no doubt conservatism can survive the uncertainties of a Trump presidency. But it is far from certain that the United States Constitution or American sovereignty can survive a third term of Obama’s “transformative justice.”

Yes, our misgivings about Trump are valid reasons for concern. But there are a few overriding issues which are decisive —  if we put the survival of our country ahead of all other questions.

When all is said and done, there are three critical issues facing the country where a Trump presidency is clearly preferable to the transformative, globalist, anti-liberty agenda of Queen Hillary.

Critical issue number one is illegal immigration. From the beginning of his campaign, Trump has made border security and control of illegal immigration the cornerstone of his candidacy, and his minions have put strong language on that issue into the 2016 GOP Platform. By contrast, Hillary has promised to double down on Obama’s executive amnesty.

Critical issue number two: Islamist terrorism. Trump has spoken out often on the need to halt the admission of Muslim refugees with radical Islamist  sympathies, while Hillary has promised to further accelerate the “resettlement” of Muslim refugees. The contrast could not be sharper. With Trump, at least we have a chance for commonsense to break through the fog of globalist idiocy.

Critical issue number three: The Second Amendment. If Hillary Clinton make the next two or three Supreme Court appointments, the Second Amendment will be abandoned by reinterpretation. You want to purchase and own a 18th Century musket? Fine. A semi-automatic rifle? No way.

Newt Gingrich’s advocacy this past week of new laws to make belief in Shariah Law a deportable offense for Muslims already in the United States created a firestorm. Good. We need a political firestorm now if we are to prevent a real one later.

Gingrich’s proposal is similar to one I made as a congressman in September of 2008, when I introduced a bill to bar admission of immigrants or refugees who adhered to Shariah law and allowed the deportation of Muslims who advocate Shariah law. Gingrich’s proposal is not unconstitutional as Hugh Hewitt and other establishment figures retorted — because we are talking about immigrants and  refugees, not citizens.

I believe Gingrich’s proposal is politically significant far beyond its likely condemnation in the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Denver Post. Gingrich was one of the three finalists for Trump’s choice as Vice President running mate, and he is firmly entrenched in the Washington Republican establishment.

Gingrich’s belated awakening to the imminent dangers of Shariah means that the blinders are coming off. Nothing can prevent this from being one of the defining issues of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Now, there are many Republicans — Paul Ryan comes to mind — who will have a knee-jerk, chamber of commerce reaction to any proposal to limit immigration by radicalized Muslims who follow Shariah Law. They will tell Trump to stay away from such ideas, that “America must be more inclusive.”

Ask yourself this: Who is more likely to resist those politically correct warnings, Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?  Or maybe Gary Johnson, the libertarian party candidate, who just this week said that the threat of terrorism is “highly overblown”?

That question answers itself. Patriots must support Donald Trump, who has made Political Correctness synonymous with stupidity.